A New Low?

[TheBramble]

I see you are having comprehension issues.

News to me. But then, it would be if I was wouldn’t it.

I am merely pointing out that this whole "blame the victim" thing on here is ridiculous and based on having no clue how these people operate.

I obviously was having issues then because what I responded to was the issue of bods blaming t2w for the carrying adverts for scammers rather than the scammers themselves; i.e. blaming the messenger not the message. Not sure when you got the ‘blame the victim’ thing. Although I begin to see there may be comprehension issues somewhere…

One look @ a Vin Diesel movie and now everyone is an expert in how boiler rooms work. Marvellous.

No idea what that’s about, but I don’t get out much.

Still - it was an opportunity for you to act like a smartar$e and I appreciate you find such opportunities hard to pass by.

I do enjoy cutting through the veils of fantasy, peeling back the veneer of superficiality and exposing the soft underbelly of reality (run out of metaphors now) when I spot an obvious canard. I’ll take your smartar$e as a compliment, but like any good panto horse, if you wish to be my apprentice, you will have to allow me to choose which end of that particular steed I place you.

 

[pboyles]

I obviously was having issues then because what I responded to was the issue of bods blaming t2w for the carrying adverts for scammers rather than the scammers themselves; i.e. blaming the messenger not the message. .

I think it's more about T2W deleting the evidence that certain vendors are scammers. If they only took adverts from honest vendors the site would be pretty much ad free.

 

[the hare]

david

Before you label T2W a "complete and total wimp" and "choosing to kick their own members in the guts etc" maybe you can draw some conclusions by browsing for threads that are still on the boards which are highly critical of various companies and their products.

jon

I think the issue here is that its difficult to reach any sort of reasonable conclusion precisely because a great deal of evidence required to do so is no longer there !

To use an extreme argument, if t2w deleted 100 million posts critical of advertisers, and allowed 50 critical posts to remain, I think you could argue that moderation was in favour of vendors. If t2w deleted 500 posts critical of advertisers, and allowed 500 posts to remain I think you could reasonably argue that they where being quite fair.

Unless you are actively engaged and watching events as they unfold, and I suspect very few are, its hard to form a conclusion !

 

[the hare]

I think it's more about T2W deleting the evidence that certain vendors are scammers.

Agreed. An acceptable boundary is crossed in the case of evidence, for example NFA rulings being deleted, warnings from the FSA being deleted etc. In those cases there is no speculation, or opinion, simply fact.

If the FSA are warning the public to avoid particular unlicenced companies, and links to those warnings are being deleted, its inevitable that questions will be asked, and the decision to delete that information will quite rightly be critisised.

Deleteing an unfounded opinion is fair game, deleting verifiable facts is out of order.

If they only took adverts from honest vendors the site would be pretty much ad free.

This is a difficult issue. We have to remember that this is an extremely dirty business, and relistically, t2w has no option, as there are very few alternatives.

T2W's competitors are take advertising revenue from those companies, and unless they can come up with an alterative mean of generating revenue (which they could do, but its more work, and more risk), then they have little option other than to do the same. For most of us, doing business with a dodgy MT4 bucketshop is just part of the learning process, and I certainly wouldnt hold t2w responsible for the few quid I lost 10 years ago with spread betting company of questionable ethics who just happend to advertise here and on a variety of other sites !

 

[pboyles]

david

Before you label T2W a "complete and total wimp" and "choosing to kick their own members in the guts etc" maybe you can draw some conclusions by browsing for threads that are still on the boards which are highly critical of various companies and their products.

jon

So is it OK if I start a new thread about LTG Goldrock?

 

[Trader333]

So is it OK if I start a new thread about LTG Goldrock?

You already know the answer to this which is no.


Paul

 

[pboyles]

You already know the answer to this which is no.


Paul

Ah, OK then, I suppose I'll just have to find Jason from FXCM and ask him about the fine again.

 

[tar]

You already know the answer to this which is no.


Paul

what if he censored the name ?

 

[Trader333]

Ah, OK then, I suppose I'll just have to find Jason from FXCM and ask him about the fine again.

Sounds like a threat to me which will only lead to one inevitable conclusion and that will also apply to your mult-nic as well.

 

[pboyles]

Sounds like a threat to me which will only lead to one inevitable conclusion and that will also apply to your mult-nic as well.

It's hardly a threat is it? What's wrong with me asking Jason when they are going to compensate non US clients? He always seems to ignore that question. If he'd answer it I wouldn't have to keep asking.

 

[the hare]

You already know the answer to this which is no.

But surely, posts have to be judged on individual merit.

I appreciate if someone repeatedly starts threads making unfounded accusations against a company, and that company retailates against t2w, causing t2w additional work, expense, or putting the business at risk, then its only natural that you would want to protect yourselves.

Recently I asked the question, is it even theoretically possible to make 500% within a 2 hour period, given the constraints of margin, and market volatility. The vendor in question claims it is, but I'm not so sure. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you, and other members of staff at t2w are comfortable with those claims, as you apear to be censoring attempts to discuss that issue.

I would argue that setting realistic expectations is an important aspect of a traders development, and personally, I would argue that setting an expectation of regularly achieving returns in excess of 500% within the space of a couple of hours is actually quite detrimental.

This issue isnt specifically about this particular vendor, I made similar critisisms of Mike Baghdady and his alledged 300% return from a single trade. I would have thought that a trading forum would welcome discussion about these types of issues, are returns of that magnitude possible, if so at what risk etc etc. If the general concensus of the membership is that its not possible to achieve returns of 500% a day, thats possibly going to raise issues about the validity of the claims of certain vendors, who are of course free to argue their case, or prove their claims via independantly audited accounts, or live calls.

I mentioned the 500% per day claim in a comment recently, and that prompted a question from a new member who asked who was making such outlandish claims. In light of the sensitivity surrounding this particular vendor, I answed via PM, but surely, its rather rdiculous that I should have to do so.

I suppose the question that needs to be addressed is this. If a new member registers this afternoon, and starts a new thread discussing the benefits of training he or she recieved from this same vendor, would that thread be allowed to remain ? and if so, what would happen to any critical posts that the thread attracted ?

 

[TheBramble]

Sounds like a threat to me which will only lead to one inevitable conclusion and that will also apply to your mult-nic as well.

Paul, would it not be simpler to write into the t2w guidelines that negative views on paying vendors will not be tolerated regardless of the veracity of these views? That way, you could save yourself and the other mods a lot of time by simply banning permanently anyone who threatened the on-going commercial viability of the site.

I think that would not only be simpler, but it would be honest toward the membership and have the integrity of being totally open in your position to what is and what is not going to be allowed. Members would be well aware in those circumstances that having an ad on t2w was no guide to quality, was not an endorsement and that the vendor could be an out-and-out scammer. They (the members) could take the necessary precautions and carry out their own due diligence.

I had no doubt Paul that you would do a good job both on the t2w staff and as a stealth moderator as you always had a solid work ethic and a high degree of personal integrity. I am more surprised that you took these roles in the first place, but given your moral fibre and standing, you yourself must find the situation an uneasy one balancing as it does individual moral integrity with commercial viability and legal protectionism.

 

[the hare]

Paul, would it not be simpler to write into the t2w guidelines that negative views on paying vendors will not be tolerated regardless of the veracity of these views? That way, you could save yourself and the other mods a lot of time by simply banning permanently anyone who threatened the on-going commercial viability of the site.

I think that would not only be simpler, but it would be honest toward the membership and have the integrity of being totally open in your position to what is and what is not going to be allowed. Members would be well aware in those circumstances that having an ad on t2w was no guide to quality, was not an endorsement and that the vendor could be an out-and-out scammer. They (the members) could take the necessary precautions and carry out their own due diligence.

I had no doubt Paul that you would do a good job both on the t2w staff and as a stealth moderator as you always had a solid work ethic and a high degree of personal integrity. I am more surprised that you took these roles in the first place, but given your moral fibre and standing, you yourself must find the situation an uneasy one balancing as it does individual moral integrity with commercial viability and legal protectionism.

That sums up the situation rather well, and I'd certainly be happy to respect that position (or be repeatedly banned as a consequence of not respecting it !)

 

[pboyles]

.

Members would be well aware in those circumstances that having an ad on t2w was no guide to quality, was not an endorsement and that the vendor could be an out-and-out scammer. They (the members) could take the necessary precautions and carry out their own due diligence.

.

Only the long standing members would know, some guy that joined last week wouldn't have a clue. As for due diligence no new trader bothers their **** with that. We've just seen a load of guys lose most of their 5 figure accounts to yet another dodgy managed FX account. The people involved were selling slimming supplements in their last scheme and now they're trying to flog some breathing exercises to improve their sexual performance.

 

[pboyles]

Here's an idea. Every advert has a warning printed on it like a cigarette packet, "This advertiser may be using lies and deceit to sell this product, carry out due diligence before purchasing". That way you can accept adverts from all sorts of scumbags and not have people accusing you of double standards. Everybody will know its a free for all and that T2W is not implying that they are recommending the vendor to its members. All sorts of boiler rooms and Ponzi schemes will be able to advertise, income will go through the roof.

 

[Trader333]

People who join T2W agree to the T&C of doing so and in section 6 it states:

6.1 You agree to abide by the T2W Site Guidelines (the "Guidelines") set out at Trade2Win Forums - FAQ: Trade2Win Site Guidelines. You acknowledge and accept that violations of the Guidelines or Terms and Conditions may result in moderators banning you from the site, and/or barring you from entry to or from participation in the Forums. This is without prejudice to or limitation of the other rights and remedies available to T2W under these Terms and Conditions.

In section 1 The Site Guidlelines state:

1.3 Do not start threads if:
- You are simply responding to another thread that has been locked/deleted by a moderator.
- You are asking why a previous thread was locked/deleted by a moderator.
- You solely want to complain about the behavior of forum participants or content. In doing so, you are only creating another pointless thread.

As the LTG thread has been deleted then all members have already agreed to abide by the above. If they do not continue to agree with the T&C that they did on signing up, then they are free to leave.

I agree that it is not easy to balance these issues and that is why T2W acts on professional legal advice when required to do so. As stated previously, to do otherwise would be insane in today's highly litigious world that we find ourselves in. The problem is that every case is different and often the law changes more quickly than you would think possible so it is very difficult to plainly state what is and what is not allowed as a generic one size fits all situation.

 

[TheBramble]

Only the long standing members would know, some guy that joined last week wouldn't have a clue. As for due diligence no new trader bothers their **** with that. We've just seen a load of guys lose most of their 5 figure accounts to yet another dodgy managed FX account. The people involved were selling slimming supplements in their last scheme and now they're trying to flog some breathing exercises to improve their sexual performance.

I know you're genuinely well intentioned and you have no hidden agenda or vested interests. But you are not going to be able to save the world from itself. There will always be mugs and those that will take advantage of mugs. It’s not your job to protect them, however commendable and public spirited your efforts may be. You’re simply banging your head against a brick wall here on t2w. The issues are potentially so commercially unpleasant and legally damaging that they (t2w) would rather pee you off than Mr. Big Wallet Legal Team. And the most important point – you have no control over your posts or your membership. The mods do.

If you really want to get into some serious outing of those you consider bad news in a big way – hit the twitter-sphere. It’s the Wild West as far as control is concerned - it’s totally lawless and unmoderated. Plus, recent research shows that the social sites are constantly monitored by those providing & looking to avail themselves of product and service. If you want a quick response and resolution from anyone from on-line to high-street for shoddy service or want to find out what’s the trend on a product or service you’re considering purchasing, hashtag your bête noires with a bon mot or deux and you’ll find yourself reaching the parts other sites can’t (or don’t want to) reach.

 

[pboyles]

People who join T2W agree to the T&C of doing so and in section 6 it states:



In section 1 The Site Guidlelines state:



As the LTG thread has been deleted then all members have already agreed to abide by the above. If they do not continue to agree with the T&C that they did on signing up, then they are free to leave.

I agree that it is not easy to balance these issues and that is why T2W acts on professional legal advice when required to do so. As stated previously, to do otherwise would be insane in today's highly litigious world that we find ourselves in. The problem is that every case is different and often the law changes more quickly than you would think possible so it is very difficult to plainly state what is and what is not allowed as a generic one size fits all situation.

Could you please publish the T&Cs for accepting advertising? In particular what conditions do you place on dishonest or misleading content/claims? Likewise do advertisers have to declare convictions for dishonesty or fines from regulators?

 

[Trader333]

This is not an area that I have much to do with as T2W contracts this out, although I do try to check now that prospective new advertisers are not being discussed on the boards as less than reputable. This is a change that came in as a result of previous experiences.

 

[pboyles]

I know you're genuinely well intentioned and you have no hidden agenda or vested interests. But you are not going to be able to save the world from itself. There will always be mugs and those that will take advantage of mugs. It’s not your job to protect them, however commendable and public spirited your efforts may be. You’re simply banging your head against a brick wall here on t2w. The issues are potentially so commercially unpleasant and legally damaging that they (t2w) would rather pee you off than Mr. Big Wallet Legal Team. And the most important point – you have no control over your posts or your membership. The mods do.

If you really want to get into some serious outing of those you consider bad news in a big way – hit the twitter-sphere. It’s the Wild West as far as control is concerned - it’s totally lawless and unmoderated. Plus, recent research shows that the social sites are constantly monitored by those providing & looking to avail themselves of product and service. If you want a quick response and resolution from anyone from on-line to high-street for shoddy service or want to find out what’s the trend on a product or service you’re considering purchasing, hashtag your bête noires with a bon mot or deux and you’ll find yourself reaching the parts other sites can’t (or don’t want to) reach.

I must look into that, I've been looking at other mediums for spreading the word. So what would you do with screenshots etc, upload to twitpic or something? As an example how would I raise awareness about a certain scammer, just post a tweet with the hash tag #bike maddaddy? Them add some text or a link to court cases?